[blml] Protect with 2 HCP?

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP?


> On Aug 29, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
>> Eric wrote:
>>
>>> That's almost the right question, but the real right question would
>>> use the language of L16A, thus: "How can partner make available to
>>> you L16 extraneous information if you already have that
>>> information?"  The answer to that is that he cannot.  In English, the
>>> phrase "to make available" uses "make" with the meaning of "to cause
>>> to become" [AHD].  You cannot, by definition, "make[] available to
>>> [your] partner extraneous information..." if that information was
>>> already available to your partner prior to your action.  AHD (The
>>> American Heritage Dictionary) uses the phrase "to make public" as an
>>> example of this grammatical construction.
>>

In the introduction to L16, extraneous information refers to knowledge that 
comes to a player through means other than legal calls or plays or 
mannerisms of an opponent. The content of the inforrmation is immaterial. It 
is the mode by which the information is given that determines whether or not 
information is extraneous. If we maintain this definition of "extraneous" 
through our reading of 16A, it becomes simple.  The information contained in 
the UI does not determine whether or not it is "extraneous", nor does our a 
priori knowledge of whatever partner may have communicated matter either. We 
have received an illegal communication, and cannot take an  action that was 
demonstrably suggested by that communication if there exists a LA that was 
not demonstrably suggested by the communication, even if we received the 
exact same information through legal means.


>> I haven't been following this thread at all.  But just looking at this
>> post: it seems that your argument would break down in cases where your
>> partner makes UI available to you---and the same information becomes
>> available through AI *after* you receive the UI.  I think there are
>> certainly cases like that, although I'm too busy to try to construct
>> one off the top of my head....
>
> My argument certainly does "break down" -- more precisely, was never
> intended to apply.  I assert only that "you cannot, by definition,
> 'make available [EI]' if that information *was already available* to
> your partner".  Moreover, it may be present without being available
> "to his partner" [L16A] if "his partner" would have been unaware of
> it absent it being made noticeable by the "transmitter's" action.
> You cannot avoid a finding that you "used" UI from partner by
> demonstrating only that there was equivalent AI "floating about"
> before the EI came along; you must make the case that you were
> already aware of it.  The contrary position is that given the
> availability of the UI your actions remain constrained even if it is
> stipulated that you could not have learned anything new from it.
>
> And if the UI is sufficiently blatant to "make available" the
> knowledge that partner wants you to do something specific (as opposed
> to just suggesting some holding that would make it attractive for you
> to do so), that is always knowledge not available from AI.
>
>> ...on second thought, isn't the case in question just such an example?
>> LHO opens 1NT.  Partner hitches and passes.  At that point, you don't
>> have any AI that partner has a good hand, and you have UI that he
>> might.  RHO then passes, and *now* you have the AI from RHO's failure
>> to make at least a game invitation.  Or am I thinking about a
>> different thread?  My apologies if this is way off base, since I
>> haven't been following this at all and haven't attempted to go back
>> and read previous e-mails.
>
> I can't say.  Like Adam, I am trying to focus on what the language of
> L16A says and means, not how it applies to the thread case, of which
> I no longer recall details.
>
>> But it would seem that if you have information from UI that is also
>> available from AI, then your rights and restrictions are the same
>> regardless of whether you got the UI or the AI first.
>
> It's a great deal easier to notice something (like some bit of AI) if
> you have been "primed" in advance (as by UI from partner) to be on
> the lookout for it.  Easier enough, IMO, to justify a logical
> presumption that you might not otherwise have done so (unless it
> would have been irrational not to!?).
>

I'll repeat my previous question:

The auction proceeds as discussed, but with no hesitations.  I work out from 
AI that partner must have a good hand with a singleton spade for his pass. 
Partner now says, out loud, "I have a singleton spade". Forgetting the 
disciplinary and procedural penalties for the moment, does L16A still apply 
if I have worked it out that he must have the singleton spade from AI (and 
have an argument so strong that even the most skeptical of AC's will accept 
that I knew about the stiff prior to the statement)?

Partner has made UI available to me by his statement, and I remain 
constrained by L16A even though I already knew what was going on (and 
haven't got the faintest clue why he would tell me in that manner, or what 
he wants me to do after his statement). I think it's that simple. Or do you 
think that I'm now free to act as though partner had never spoken, since 
there was no new content in his message?

Hirsch